If Arkansas Tech wants to upgrade to D2? They need to add at least 3 men's sports, and 3 women's sports. While I was attended there, they dropped women's tennis and swimming and diving teams. They still have both the pool and the tennis court.

Now, we have seen on this board and other places that both MVFC and Big Sky wants to move up to FBS status.

Lamar, Sam Houston State, SFA and maybe McNeese State could move up. Arkansas Tech, Central Oklahoma, Tarleton State and Texas A&M-Commerce could replace them. West Texas A&M could join the MVFC as number 12. Their normal rivals are New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP and Texas Tech.

Could a Southern or OVC also want to move up as a whole? Maybe Jacksonville State, Eastern Kentucky and some others could join forces somehow?

MVFC:
Illinois State
Indiana State
Wichita State
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Youngstown State
Missouri State
Northern Iowa
West Texas A&M
Lamar
Sam Houston State

(06-28-2016 08:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  If Arkansas Tech wants to upgrade to D2? They need to add at least 3 men's sports, and 3 women's sports. While I was attended there, they dropped women's tennis and swimming and diving teams. They still have both the pool and the tennis court.

Now, we have seen on this board and other places that both MVFC and Big Sky wants to move up to FBS status.

Lamar, Sam Houston State, SFA and maybe McNeese State could move up. Arkansas Tech, Central Oklahoma, Tarleton State and Texas A&M-Commerce could replace them. West Texas A&M could join the MVFC as number 12. Their normal rivals are New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP and Texas Tech.

Could a Southern or OVC also want to move up as a whole? Maybe Jacksonville State, Eastern Kentucky and some others could join forces somehow?

MVFC:
Illinois State
Indiana State
Wichita State
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Youngstown State
Missouri State
Northern Iowa
West Texas A&M
Lamar
Sam Houston State

They dropped swimming because of the pools condition and overall cost to maintain it. But with the new aqua center should fix that problem. The farm being converted into a soccer complex should add another 10. Also tennis is doing just fine. Spend some time at ATU women's athletic complex.

Currently there are 13 programs in the Southland conference. ATU is looking at trying to be number 14.

When has the MVFC ever stated it wanted to move up to FBS?

Hint... NEVER!!!

(06-28-2016 08:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  If Arkansas Tech wants to upgrade to D2? They need to add at least 3 men's sports, and 3 women's sports. While I was attended there, they dropped women's tennis and swimming and diving teams. They still have both the pool and the tennis court.

Now, we have seen on this board and other places that both MVFC and Big Sky wants to move up to FBS status.

Lamar, Sam Houston State, SFA and maybe McNeese State could move up. Arkansas Tech, Central Oklahoma, Tarleton State and Texas A&M-Commerce could replace them. West Texas A&M could join the MVFC as number 12. Their normal rivals are New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP and Texas Tech.

Could a Southern or OVC also want to move up as a whole? Maybe Jacksonville State, Eastern Kentucky and some others could join forces somehow?

MVFC:
Illinois State
Indiana State
Wichita State
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Youngstown State
Missouri State
Northern Iowa
West Texas A&M
Lamar
Sam Houston State

(06-29-2016 11:52 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  When has the MVFC ever stated it wanted to move up to FBS?

Hint... NEVER!!!

(06-28-2016 08:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  If Arkansas Tech wants to upgrade to D2? They need to add at least 3 men's sports, and 3 women's sports. While I was attended there, they dropped women's tennis and swimming and diving teams. They still have both the pool and the tennis court.

Now, we have seen on this board and other places that both MVFC and Big Sky wants to move up to FBS status.

Lamar, Sam Houston State, SFA and maybe McNeese State could move up. Arkansas Tech, Central Oklahoma, Tarleton State and Texas A&M-Commerce could replace them. West Texas A&M could join the MVFC as number 12. Their normal rivals are New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP and Texas Tech.

Could a Southern or OVC also want to move up as a whole? Maybe Jacksonville State, Eastern Kentucky and some others could join forces somehow?

MVFC:
Illinois State
Indiana State
Wichita State
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Youngstown State
Missouri State
Northern Iowa
West Texas A&M
Lamar
Sam Houston State

Back when Idaho, New Mexico State, San Jose State and Utah State were still together as a WAC. There were talks between WAC and one of the FCS conferences for a merger of football only. It was not the Big Sky Conference, because most of their schools do not have the stadium size to be FBS ready back then. Everybody in MVFC except for like 3 of them don't have the stadium size ready. A month later, Northern Iowa announced that they want FBS, and a few weeks later, Missouri State announced new projects to update their stadium.

(06-28-2016 12:38 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 12:04 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:14 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Between Koch, Carney, Ruffin, DeBoer and others I think we could raise quite a bit of what is needed if we can get them on board. There are also a number of corporate types that could invest if they feel that this could benefit them in the long run.

And some of the stadium upgrades could be made over a few years time. I haven't made it all the way through the report yet as I'm still trying to do my job as well, but the summaries I've read I think look promising.

What do you guys really hope to accomplish with FBS football? I mean we both can agree Kansas and Kansas State are very well established and well funded. Yet they can't even field consistently good teams.

KU doesn't care about football. I believe we can pass them in time. KSU cares but they're KSU so who knows. But we can still put a solid program together. Will we ever compete for a national championship? Probably not. But you can say the same thing for about 100 other FBS schools.

What it could accomplish is enrollment growth, more visibility in the region and potentially nationally. More school pride and a better student experience on campus. More involvement and interaction with the community, both business and simply fans. Potentially a better conference for basketball and other sports which would only help all of the above as well. Increased giving to the university both in athletics and academics.

So I guess not a damn thing.

I was not being rude when I asked that by the way was just curious.

I'm not Kansas fan but I would not say there is a single FBS team that does not care about football. Even the worst G5 programs care about how many games they will win each season. I think it has more to do with the fact that Kansas teams are just at a disadvantage in football.

But why I ask is that I hope the majority of WS fans know just what you are getting yourselves into. That all sounds nice but a bad football team can actually cause the opposite to happen.

Again I just ask how?

1. A better basketball conference. What is the plan for football to bring this about? It wont be the AAC or MWC and I would hardly call CUSA or the SBC better than the MVC. If your goal is the MAC they would need to add another team. And at the moment I just don't see why the MAC would put themselves in the position CUSA is in with two many teams.

2. More school pride & visibility. You guys have a very good reputation now...People around the country know of your basketball. FBS and FCS are pretty much rigged to where only schools with special situations will be consistently good. Have you ever wondered why SEC teams, California teams, and teams that have a lot of Texas/Florida/Ohio are consistently the best teams?

Just know what you are wishing for. You are making fun of Kansas but like I said FBS is rigged....Kansas will ALWAYS be making ten times as much money than Wichita, will always have a better schedule, will always have more TV exposure, will always access to better recruits, just because they are in power conference.

This is a system where if you ever have a coach that starts winning Kansas will be there to double his salary and offer the chance to play a big kid schedule.

(06-29-2016 02:52 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 12:38 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 12:04 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:14 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Between Koch, Carney, Ruffin, DeBoer and others I think we could raise quite a bit of what is needed if we can get them on board. There are also a number of corporate types that could invest if they feel that this could benefit them in the long run.

And some of the stadium upgrades could be made over a few years time. I haven't made it all the way through the report yet as I'm still trying to do my job as well, but the summaries I've read I think look promising.

What do you guys really hope to accomplish with FBS football? I mean we both can agree Kansas and Kansas State are very well established and well funded. Yet they can't even field consistently good teams.

KU doesn't care about football. I believe we can pass them in time. KSU cares but they're KSU so who knows. But we can still put a solid program together. Will we ever compete for a national championship? Probably not. But you can say the same thing for about 100 other FBS schools.

What it could accomplish is enrollment growth, more visibility in the region and potentially nationally. More school pride and a better student experience on campus. More involvement and interaction with the community, both business and simply fans. Potentially a better conference for basketball and other sports which would only help all of the above as well. Increased giving to the university both in athletics and academics.

So I guess not a damn thing.

I was not being rude when I asked that by the way was just curious.

I'm not Kansas fan but I would not say there is a single FBS team that does not care about football. Even the worst G5 programs care about how many games they will win each season. I think it has more to do with the fact that Kansas teams are just at a disadvantage in football.

But why I ask is that I hope the majority of WS fans know just what you are getting yourselves into. That all sounds nice but a bad football team can actually cause the opposite to happen.

Again I just ask how?

1. A better basketball conference. What is the plan for football to bring this about? It wont be the AAC or MWC and I would hardly call CUSA or the SBC better than the MVC. If your goal is the MAC they would need to add another team. And at the moment I just don't see why the MAC would put themselves in the position CUSA is in with two many teams.

2. More school pride & visibility. You guys have a very good reputation now...People around the country know of your basketball. FBS and FCS are pretty much rigged to where only schools with special situations will be consistently good. Have you ever wondered why SEC teams, California teams, and teams that have a lot of Texas/Florida/Ohio are consistently the best teams?

Just know what you are wishing for. You are making fun of Kansas but like I said FBS is rigged....Kansas will ALWAYS be making ten times as much money than Wichita, will always have a better schedule, will always have more TV exposure, will always access to better recruits, just because they are in power conference.

This is a system where if you ever have a coach that starts winning Kansas will be there to double his salary and offer the chance to play a big kid schedule.

Football is an afterthought at KU. That's an absolute fact.

The AAC or MWC may not happen overnight, but without football, we will forever be stuck in the MVC which continues to get worse. Obviously we can have some success where we are, but our margin for error is pretty damn thin and makes every non conference game insanely important. A couple of injuries early and our season can be done for. We lost a couple of games this year when we were without our starting PG, our backup PG, our starting center and a guy who would have been our 3rd PG wasn't yet eligible. That stretch nearly cost us an NCAA appearance and stuck us in the play in game. If the MVC wasn't so god awful, we could have picked up some wins in conference that would have made up for those early games when we were depleted. Outside of UNI, I question just about every school in the conference. Evansville had their best team since joining the conference and they didn't even attempt to schedule for an NCAA and missed the NIT as well because of it.

There is no benefit to staying in the MVC long term. If we have to go to one of the weaker G5 conferences to give us a chance at something better than I'm all for it. All we have to do is have a moderate bit of success in football to at least be in consideration for openings in an AAC/MWC. Our athletic department is in great shape and the study released shows how much that's true. Yes, football is the main key to conference moves, but basketball can play an important part and we have a great asset there. And if conference presidents want to look at the others sports we offer, they're all doing pretty damn well so we'd be a pretty good boost to the non revenue sports as well. I believe we currently compete in 15 sports in the MVC and we just won 9 conference titles with a few 2nd and 3rds in there. Plus Baseball will get better. We're also the only school in the MVC that is offering FCOA for all sports. All others only do basketball and I believe UNI will offer it for VB.

After we dropped football, enrollment slowly went down by about 3000. Our president has made it his goal from day one to grow the student population to over 20k and a lot of students from this area have chosen to go elsewhere because Wichita doesn't have football. I know I had a number of friends that left because of that and I hear the same thing from kids now. Even if we have to stay FCS longer than most of us hope, we can do it well and it will be funded. I'm not saying we're going to turn into NDSU, but there are also no FCS schools in KS, OK or NE which might actually help. Though I'm sure UNI and the Dakotas recruit NE effectively.

And as far as KSU goes, they've been a pretty solid program for 20 years or so. They've had ups and downs but it's been pretty good and well supported. But there are also a lot of people in the Wichita metro that follow KSU or some others only because WSU doesn't currently field a team. Wichita is the main passion for a lot of these people who would switch their allegiances to support the Shockers.

And while basketball has garnered some respect regionally and nationally, we still fight an uphill battle as a whole because of our conference. This conference will never get any kind of income off of TV as we beg ESPN to show our games basically for free. There is no room for growth in the MVC as a whole. There are reasons that at least three other schools have looked at moving up to FBS to give them more options. None have done so yet, but if things start to shake up again we won't be the only ones looking to move. UNI could do it now if they wanted and had an invite. MSU and Illinois State have both talked about it. We've just been the most vocal about it and I think it's because the administration is frustrated that we're grouped with a bunch of schools that don't have resources to do much more than they already are. On top of that, from the academic side, I'm not sure if any of the member schools have the same mission as WSU and I believe there's only one that is on or near our level when it comes to research which is a huge focus for us now. And our president has talked about wanting to be associated with other research institutions.

Now to specifically answer your questions, the way things are going, the MAC and Belt are probably stronger than the MVC in basketball. Will that trend continue? Who knows, but if you remove Wichita from the MVC it takes quite a hit in RPI ranking.

I honestly don't follow college football that closely so I don't know specifics of who is consistently good year in and year out outside of Bama. OU and Ohio State I guess would be up there. Beyond that, I'm not sure as I don't have enough interest in other schools outside of Wichita. But there's a ton of history with them and that plays a huge part of it. Reputation can go a long way.

And yes, Kansas will always make more money and blah blah blah. But if Wichita finds some success and gets into a respectable conference, we can definitely pass them in football. Winning goes a long way and Kansas doesn't win. They'd be lucky to finish middle of the pack in the MVFC I'm sure. If being in a P5 conference was everything, NDSU wouldn't be beating those teams every year. Yes, P5 teams have an advantage in everything because of how the system is rigged as you put it. The networks gift them money and exposure that they deny the rest. But that doesn't mean the rest can't build something successful.

As far as basketball, they can get whatever recruits they want and if we happen to run into them in the tournament again, I'll like our chances of winning that game again.

And as I've said, winning a national title in football is not likely for us at the FBS level. But we can build a solid program given time and an opportunity and with the rest of the athletic department be a beneficial addition to a number of conferences. If the only purpose is to win a title then 90% of schools should drop football now and that includes a number of P5 schools. But it goes beyond all of that. As I've said, we're trying to draw more traditional students to campus. We're trying to grow enrollment and increase giving. Football can and most likely will do that for us. It will be a process and nobody is saying we're going to dominate anything, but there's no reason for most of us to believe that there's no hope.

Again, the only way we ever move up is with football. Without it, there is next to no hope of ever landing in a better conference as those conferences require football. Plus, we really want to be in a conference that has a TX presence as we do a lot of recruiting for students down there. We're currently offering in-state tuition to students in the Tulsa, OKC and DFW metro areas as well. We're working on getting that offer extended to KCMO.

Sorry for the long winded response.

(06-29-2016 04:08 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 02:52 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 12:38 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 12:04 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:14 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Between Koch, Carney, Ruffin, DeBoer and others I think we could raise quite a bit of what is needed if we can get them on board. There are also a number of corporate types that could invest if they feel that this could benefit them in the long run.

And some of the stadium upgrades could be made over a few years time. I haven't made it all the way through the report yet as I'm still trying to do my job as well, but the summaries I've read I think look promising.

What do you guys really hope to accomplish with FBS football? I mean we both can agree Kansas and Kansas State are very well established and well funded. Yet they can't even field consistently good teams.

KU doesn't care about football. I believe we can pass them in time. KSU cares but they're KSU so who knows. But we can still put a solid program together. Will we ever compete for a national championship? Probably not. But you can say the same thing for about 100 other FBS schools.

What it could accomplish is enrollment growth, more visibility in the region and potentially nationally. More school pride and a better student experience on campus. More involvement and interaction with the community, both business and simply fans. Potentially a better conference for basketball and other sports which would only help all of the above as well. Increased giving to the university both in athletics and academics.

So I guess not a damn thing.

I was not being rude when I asked that by the way was just curious.

I'm not Kansas fan but I would not say there is a single FBS team that does not care about football. Even the worst G5 programs care about how many games they will win each season. I think it has more to do with the fact that Kansas teams are just at a disadvantage in football.

But why I ask is that I hope the majority of WS fans know just what you are getting yourselves into. That all sounds nice but a bad football team can actually cause the opposite to happen.

Again I just ask how?

1. A better basketball conference. What is the plan for football to bring this about? It wont be the AAC or MWC and I would hardly call CUSA or the SBC better than the MVC. If your goal is the MAC they would need to add another team. And at the moment I just don't see why the MAC would put themselves in the position CUSA is in with two many teams.

2. More school pride & visibility. You guys have a very good reputation now...People around the country know of your basketball. FBS and FCS are pretty much rigged to where only schools with special situations will be consistently good. Have you ever wondered why SEC teams, California teams, and teams that have a lot of Texas/Florida/Ohio are consistently the best teams?

Just know what you are wishing for. You are making fun of Kansas but like I said FBS is rigged....Kansas will ALWAYS be making ten times as much money than Wichita, will always have a better schedule, will always have more TV exposure, will always access to better recruits, just because they are in power conference.

This is a system where if you ever have a coach that starts winning Kansas will be there to double his salary and offer the chance to play a big kid schedule.

Football is an afterthought at KU. That's an absolute fact.

The AAC or MWC may not happen overnight, but without football, we will forever be stuck in the MVC which continues to get worse. Obviously we can have some success where we are, but our margin for error is pretty damn thin and makes every non conference game insanely important. A couple of injuries early and our season can be done for. We lost a couple of games this year when we were without our starting PG, our backup PG, our starting center and a guy who would have been our 3rd PG wasn't yet eligible. That stretch nearly cost us an NCAA appearance and stuck us in the play in game. If the MVC wasn't so god awful, we could have picked up some wins in conference that would have made up for those early games when we were depleted. Outside of UNI, I question just about every school in the conference. Evansville had their best team since joining the conference and they didn't even attempt to schedule for an NCAA and missed the NIT as well because of it.

There is no benefit to staying in the MVC long term. If we have to go to one of the weaker G5 conferences to give us a chance at something better than I'm all for it. All we have to do is have a moderate bit of success in football to at least be in consideration for openings in an AAC/MWC. Our athletic department is in great shape and the study released shows how much that's true. Yes, football is the main key to conference moves, but basketball can play an important part and we have a great asset there. And if conference presidents want to look at the others sports we offer, they're all doing pretty damn well so we'd be a pretty good boost to the non revenue sports as well. I believe we currently compete in 15 sports in the MVC and we just won 9 conference titles with a few 2nd and 3rds in there. Plus Baseball will get better. We're also the only school in the MVC that is offering FCOA for all sports. All others only do basketball and I believe UNI will offer it for VB.

After we dropped football, enrollment slowly went down by about 3000. Our president has made it his goal from day one to grow the student population to over 20k and a lot of students from this area have chosen to go elsewhere because Wichita doesn't have football. I know I had a number of friends that left because of that and I hear the same thing from kids now. Even if we have to stay FCS longer than most of us hope, we can do it well and it will be funded. I'm not saying we're going to turn into NDSU, but there are also no FCS schools in KS, OK or NE which might actually help. Though I'm sure UNI and the Dakotas recruit NE effectively.

And as far as KSU goes, they've been a pretty solid program for 20 years or so. They've had ups and downs but it's been pretty good and well supported. But there are also a lot of people in the Wichita metro that follow KSU or some others only because WSU doesn't currently field a team. Wichita is the main passion for a lot of these people who would switch their allegiances to support the Shockers.

And while basketball has garnered some respect regionally and nationally, we still fight an uphill battle as a whole because of our conference. This conference will never get any kind of income off of TV as we beg ESPN to show our games basically for free. There is no room for growth in the MVC as a whole. There are reasons that at least three other schools have looked at moving up to FBS to give them more options. None have done so yet, but if things start to shake up again we won't be the only ones looking to move. UNI could do it now if they wanted and had an invite. MSU and Illinois State have both talked about it. We've just been the most vocal about it and I think it's because the administration is frustrated that we're grouped with a bunch of schools that don't have resources to do much more than they already are. On top of that, from the academic side, I'm not sure if any of the member schools have the same mission as WSU and I believe there's only one that is on or near our level when it comes to research which is a huge focus for us now. And our president has talked about wanting to be associated with other research institutions.

Now to specifically answer your questions, the way things are going, the MAC and Belt are probably stronger than the MVC in basketball. Will that trend continue? Who knows, but if you remove Wichita from the MVC it takes quite a hit in RPI ranking.

I honestly don't follow college football that closely so I don't know specifics of who is consistently good year in and year out outside of Bama. OU and Ohio State I guess would be up there. Beyond that, I'm not sure as I don't have enough interest in other schools outside of Wichita. But there's a ton of history with them and that plays a huge part of it. Reputation can go a long way.

And yes, Kansas will always make more money and blah blah blah. But if Wichita finds some success and gets into a respectable conference, we can definitely pass them in football. Winning goes a long way and Kansas doesn't win. They'd be lucky to finish middle of the pack in the MVFC I'm sure. If being in a P5 conference was everything, NDSU wouldn't be beating those teams every year. Yes, P5 teams have an advantage in everything because of how the system is rigged as you put it. The networks gift them money and exposure that they deny the rest. But that doesn't mean the rest can't build something successful.

As far as basketball, they can get whatever recruits they want and if we happen to run into them in the tournament again, I'll like our chances of winning that game again.

And as I've said, winning a national title in football is not likely for us at the FBS level. But we can build a solid program given time and an opportunity and with the rest of the athletic department be a beneficial addition to a number of conferences. If the only purpose is to win a title then 90% of schools should drop football now and that includes a number of P5 schools. But it goes beyond all of that. As I've said, we're trying to draw more traditional students to campus. We're trying to grow enrollment and increase giving. Football can and most likely will do that for us. It will be a process and nobody is saying we're going to dominate anything, but there's no reason for most of us to believe that there's no hope.

Again, the only way we ever move up is with football. Without it, there is next to no hope of ever landing in a better conference as those conferences require football. Plus, we really want to be in a conference that has a TX presence as we do a lot of recruiting for students down there. We're currently offering in-state tuition to students in the Tulsa, OKC and DFW metro areas as well. We're working on getting that offer extended to KCMO.

Sorry for the long winded response.

Would the SBC be willing to take in Wichita and Missouri St?

Probably a combo that could gain acceptance.

Kittonhead ' Wrote:  Would the SBC be willing to take in Wichita and Missouri St?

Probably a combo that could gain acceptance.

The SBC was practically begging Mo St to hop on board, but it flatly rejected them.

Sun Belt basketball is seen as a big demotion by WSU and Mo St.

Before the next CFP contract, my bet is CUSA will split in two, with a low level ACC2 and a new Southwest Conference. WSU and Mo St are positioning themselves, at worst case, for the new Southwest Conference. Best case is the AAC or MWC. But it in meantime they need an FBS bid that doesn't damage basketball.

(06-29-2016 11:52 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  When has the MVFC ever stated it wanted to move up to FBS?

Hint... NEVER!!!

(06-28-2016 08:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  If Arkansas Tech wants to upgrade to D2? They need to add at least 3 men's sports, and 3 women's sports. While I was attended there, they dropped women's tennis and swimming and diving teams. They still have both the pool and the tennis court.

Now, we have seen on this board and other places that both MVFC and Big Sky wants to move up to FBS status.

Lamar, Sam Houston State, SFA and maybe McNeese State could move up. Arkansas Tech, Central Oklahoma, Tarleton State and Texas A&M-Commerce could replace them. West Texas A&M could join the MVFC as number 12. Their normal rivals are New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP and Texas Tech.

Could a Southern or OVC also want to move up as a whole? Maybe Jacksonville State, Eastern Kentucky and some others could join forces somehow?

MVFC:
Illinois State
Indiana State
Wichita State
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Youngstown State
Missouri State
Northern Iowa
West Texas A&M
Lamar
Sam Houston State

David St is correct. The MVC tried to merge with the WAC when it was down to four teams and purge Idaho and Seattle from the merged league. WAC Commish Hurd mentioned a Midwest FCS league that wanted to merge with the WAC, but Idaho and Seattle blocked it for obvious reasons.

Back in 2011, UNI and Ind St both had articles about moving to FBS in their local papers. Google them because they exist. The MVC clearly wanted to merge with the WAC and take on Denver and NMSU and become an FBS league. But that doesn't fit with the spin the XDSU's are giving out now does it?

I don't see the MAC taking Wichita State. They would be a prize for C-USA/Sunbelt/MAC if it was actually believed they would stay long-term, but they would already have 1 foot out the door looking for something better the same day they got accepted.

They'd provide a short-term benefit but the MAC would have to add another team to make it an even 14 then add another team once Wichita State leaves. In the long-term they would come away having 2 extra mouths to feed. Just best off staying at 12 teams.

(06-29-2016 10:01 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  I don't see the MAC taking Wichita State. They would be a prize for C-USA/Sunbelt/MAC if it was actually believed they would stay long-term, but they would already have 1 foot out the door looking for something better the same day they got accepted.

They'd provide a short-term benefit but the MAC would have to add another team to make it an even 14 then add another team once Wichita State leaves. In the long-term they would come away having 2 extra mouths to feed. Just best off staying at 12 teams.

Yeah, I don't think Wichita is a bad option. In fact, they would be a boost to whatever conference would add them. But the problem is teams come in pairs and the only conference that could take a pair of teams right now is the SBC.

If they could convince Missouri State to come with them then I could see it actually being a beneficial situation for all parties involved.

(06-29-2016 04:08 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 02:52 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 12:38 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 12:04 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:14 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Between Koch, Carney, Ruffin, DeBoer and others I think we could raise quite a bit of what is needed if we can get them on board. There are also a number of corporate types that could invest if they feel that this could benefit them in the long run.

And some of the stadium upgrades could be made over a few years time. I haven't made it all the way through the report yet as I'm still trying to do my job as well, but the summaries I've read I think look promising.

What do you guys really hope to accomplish with FBS football? I mean we both can agree Kansas and Kansas State are very well established and well funded. Yet they can't even field consistently good teams.

KU doesn't care about football. I believe we can pass them in time. KSU cares but they're KSU so who knows. But we can still put a solid program together. Will we ever compete for a national championship? Probably not. But you can say the same thing for about 100 other FBS schools.

What it could accomplish is enrollment growth, more visibility in the region and potentially nationally. More school pride and a better student experience on campus. More involvement and interaction with the community, both business and simply fans. Potentially a better conference for basketball and other sports which would only help all of the above as well. Increased giving to the university both in athletics and academics.

So I guess not a damn thing.

I was not being rude when I asked that by the way was just curious.

I'm not Kansas fan but I would not say there is a single FBS team that does not care about football. Even the worst G5 programs care about how many games they will win each season. I think it has more to do with the fact that Kansas teams are just at a disadvantage in football.

But why I ask is that I hope the majority of WS fans know just what you are getting yourselves into. That all sounds nice but a bad football team can actually cause the opposite to happen.

Again I just ask how?

1. A better basketball conference. What is the plan for football to bring this about? It wont be the AAC or MWC and I would hardly call CUSA or the SBC better than the MVC. If your goal is the MAC they would need to add another team. And at the moment I just don't see why the MAC would put themselves in the position CUSA is in with two many teams.

2. More school pride & visibility. You guys have a very good reputation now...People around the country know of your basketball. FBS and FCS are pretty much rigged to where only schools with special situations will be consistently good. Have you ever wondered why SEC teams, California teams, and teams that have a lot of Texas/Florida/Ohio are consistently the best teams?

Just know what you are wishing for. You are making fun of Kansas but like I said FBS is rigged....Kansas will ALWAYS be making ten times as much money than Wichita, will always have a better schedule, will always have more TV exposure, will always access to better recruits, just because they are in power conference.

This is a system where if you ever have a coach that starts winning Kansas will be there to double his salary and offer the chance to play a big kid schedule.

And yes, Kansas will always make more money and blah blah blah. But if Wichita finds some success and gets into a respectable conference, we can definitely pass them in football. Winning goes a long way and Kansas doesn't win. They'd be lucky to finish middle of the pack in the MVFC I'm sure. If being in a P5 conference was everything, NDSU wouldn't be beating those teams every year. Yes, P5 teams have an advantage in everything because of how the system is rigged as you put it. The networks gift them money and exposure that they deny the rest. But that doesn't mean the rest can't build something successful.

As far as basketball, they can get whatever recruits they want and if we happen to run into them in the tournament again, I'll like our chances of winning that game again.

Again, the only way we ever move up is with football. Without it, there is next to no hope of ever landing in a better conference as those conferences require football. Plus, we really want to be in a conference that has a TX presence as we do a lot of recruiting for students down there. We're currently offering in-state tuition to students in the Tulsa, OKC and DFW metro areas as well. We're working on getting that offer extended to KCMO.

Sorry for the long winded response.

You are okay, and you are the type of person that will help the program grow should it come to pass. I admittedly did not know Wichita was in such a dire situation in terms of conference placement. No one is willing to take you guys as a non football member?

And I apologize if I came off as you can't build a winning program. I was simply trying to make you aware that for a new program it's very challenging. (UTSA, UNCC, South Alabama, Georgia State, UAB) for examples.

I really hate the way this system is but unfortunately for new teams college football is like a 50 year old lady trying to become friends with a group of ladies who have been friends for 40 years. No matter how hard you want to compete there is just no way to really change the fact most FBS programs have been around for over 100 years and they are not just teams. They have become a school tradition.

(06-30-2016 08:46 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:01 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  I don't see the MAC taking Wichita State. They would be a prize for C-USA/Sunbelt/MAC if it was actually believed they would stay long-term, but they would already have 1 foot out the door looking for something better the same day they got accepted.

They'd provide a short-term benefit but the MAC would have to add another team to make it an even 14 then add another team once Wichita State leaves. In the long-term they would come away having 2 extra mouths to feed. Just best off staying at 12 teams.

Yeah, I don't think Wichita is a bad option. In fact, they would be a boost to whatever conference would add them. But the problem is teams come in pairs and the only conference that could take a pair of teams right now is the SBC.

If they could convince Missouri State to come with them then I could see it actually being a beneficial situation for all parties involved.

The thing about that though is I don't think the SB wants to have 2 FCS pull ups at the same time..again. If that was an option I think NMSU would be added as a full member, which is still a better candidate than Missouri St currently.

(06-30-2016 08:46 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:01 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  I don't see the MAC taking Wichita State. They would be a prize for C-USA/Sunbelt/MAC if it was actually believed they would stay long-term, but they would already have 1 foot out the door looking for something better the same day they got accepted.

They'd provide a short-term benefit but the MAC would have to add another team to make it an even 14 then add another team once Wichita State leaves. In the long-term they would come away having 2 extra mouths to feed. Just best off staying at 12 teams.

Yeah, I don't think Wichita is a bad option. In fact, they would be a boost to whatever conference would add them. But the problem is teams come in pairs and the only conference that could take a pair of teams right now is the SBC.

If they could convince Missouri State to come with them then I could see it actually being a beneficial situation for all parties involved.

I have no idea how we would be paired if someone were willing to add us. I would think the MAC could add UNI as there were talks in the past about them going to the MAC but they were worried about basketball. The MAC seems to have increased its basketball strength and I could see UNI choosing the MAC over the MVC without Wichita.

The Belt would most likely go after MSU as there seems to be a lot of mutual interest there. The Belt has gotten a little better in basketball but I don't know if that will continue. But the Belt with MSU and Wichita is probably stronger than the MVC without.

But everyone knows that Wichita would take a MWC/AAC offer if they got it and that would be the risk for any conference that gave us a shot. I'm sure part of any agreement would be some sort of financial compensation if we leave before X amount of years. Is that enough for someone to take a chance? I have no idea, but they will keep whatever NCAA tourney credits we accumulate while there and the way recruiting is going I think there will be quite a few units.

CUSA seems to be a bit more of a mess right now, but if there's a split between east and west who knows. That would offer another opportunity as the west would probably want to add a few teams. NMSU might get a good shot as well at that point. But I'd have to look and see how a CUSA west would break down.

But I'm a firm believer that we should take that risk because without it, we're never going anywhere. With it, there are no guarantees but there are many more opportunities.

(06-30-2016 08:59 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 04:08 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 02:52 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 12:38 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 12:04 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  What do you guys really hope to accomplish with FBS football? I mean we both can agree Kansas and Kansas State are very well established and well funded. Yet they can't even field consistently good teams.

KU doesn't care about football. I believe we can pass them in time. KSU cares but they're KSU so who knows. But we can still put a solid program together. Will we ever compete for a national championship? Probably not. But you can say the same thing for about 100 other FBS schools.

What it could accomplish is enrollment growth, more visibility in the region and potentially nationally. More school pride and a better student experience on campus. More involvement and interaction with the community, both business and simply fans. Potentially a better conference for basketball and other sports which would only help all of the above as well. Increased giving to the university both in athletics and academics.

So I guess not a damn thing.

I was not being rude when I asked that by the way was just curious.

I'm not Kansas fan but I would not say there is a single FBS team that does not care about football. Even the worst G5 programs care about how many games they will win each season. I think it has more to do with the fact that Kansas teams are just at a disadvantage in football.

But why I ask is that I hope the majority of WS fans know just what you are getting yourselves into. That all sounds nice but a bad football team can actually cause the opposite to happen.

Again I just ask how?

1. A better basketball conference. What is the plan for football to bring this about? It wont be the AAC or MWC and I would hardly call CUSA or the SBC better than the MVC. If your goal is the MAC they would need to add another team. And at the moment I just don't see why the MAC would put themselves in the position CUSA is in with two many teams.

2. More school pride & visibility. You guys have a very good reputation now...People around the country know of your basketball. FBS and FCS are pretty much rigged to where only schools with special situations will be consistently good. Have you ever wondered why SEC teams, California teams, and teams that have a lot of Texas/Florida/Ohio are consistently the best teams?

Just know what you are wishing for. You are making fun of Kansas but like I said FBS is rigged....Kansas will ALWAYS be making ten times as much money than Wichita, will always have a better schedule, will always have more TV exposure, will always access to better recruits, just because they are in power conference.

This is a system where if you ever have a coach that starts winning Kansas will be there to double his salary and offer the chance to play a big kid schedule.

And yes, Kansas will always make more money and blah blah blah. But if Wichita finds some success and gets into a respectable conference, we can definitely pass them in football. Winning goes a long way and Kansas doesn't win. They'd be lucky to finish middle of the pack in the MVFC I'm sure. If being in a P5 conference was everything, NDSU wouldn't be beating those teams every year. Yes, P5 teams have an advantage in everything because of how the system is rigged as you put it. The networks gift them money and exposure that they deny the rest. But that doesn't mean the rest can't build something successful.

As far as basketball, they can get whatever recruits they want and if we happen to run into them in the tournament again, I'll like our chances of winning that game again.

Again, the only way we ever move up is with football. Without it, there is next to no hope of ever landing in a better conference as those conferences require football. Plus, we really want to be in a conference that has a TX presence as we do a lot of recruiting for students down there. We're currently offering in-state tuition to students in the Tulsa, OKC and DFW metro areas as well. We're working on getting that offer extended to KCMO.

Sorry for the long winded response.

You are okay, and you are the type of person that will help the program grow should it come to pass. I admittedly did not know Wichita was in such a dire situation in terms of conference placement. No one is willing to take you guys as a non football member?

And I apologize if I came off as you can't build a winning program. I was simply trying to make you aware that for a new program it's very challenging. (UTSA, UNCC, South Alabama, Georgia State, UAB) for examples.

I really hate the way this system is but unfortunately for new teams college football is like a 50 year old lady trying to become friends with a group of ladies who have been friends for 40 years. No matter how hard you want to compete there is just no way to really change the fact most FBS programs have been around for over 100 years and they are not just teams. They have become a school tradition.

I definitely misread the tone of your first post as hostile and I will defend Wichita to the bitter end. It's all good now.

Most people agree that from purely a basketball standpoint, we would help either the MWC or the AAC. Many of their fans agree with that. But the belief is, and the MWC commish has said so publicly, the Wichita will not be added to either because we don't play football. So to reach the highest level possible for basketball and other sports, we must have football. There may be conferences that would add us without football, but I'm not sure the benefit is worth it as we'd still be held back from what most of us truly want, and that's to compete against the best we can.

I also don't mean to belittle the MVC, it's been a good conference and at one time was arguable the best conference in basketball. But that was a long time ago and most of those power teams are long gone and playing in the AAC or XII now. There are schools that still want to be strong in basketball but some just may not have the ability. UNI I respect but they're never going to be able to pay to keep a coach. They're lucky Jacobson truly loves UNI and would only leave for one or two jobs. And he is paid well, but not well enough if he were willing to jump to about any power conference school. MSU wants to be good but they seem to have to do everything on the cheap and I hear one of their biggest donors just filed bankruptcy or something. Not sure if that's true but I've seen it said somewhere. And they're constantly nickel and diming their coaches. Illinois State wants to be good as well but are taking a lot of risks to accomplish it and that could backfire on them. Bradley has made some poor decisions but are the one school I think could rise up in basketball and accomplish a lot. Everyone else....not so much. No money or no fan support or just a poorly run athletic department.

But we're well aware of the challenges ahead of us if this does happen. But we have an athletic department that is run very well and we have the donors and community support to get this off the ground. And President Bardo has said a number of times that if we bring football back, it's not going to be done cheap and we're going to do everything we need to do to be successful. It will be funded. Even the estimates in the report that came out had our FCS funding near the top of that group within the first 5 years. No guarantees, but not holding back either. If we get stuck in FCS we're going to do everything we can to get FBS level facilities so we are ready if/when we get our shot. We already have a 30k+ stadium that we could add on to if need be as well.

I have faith in our president and our athletic department. The only thing that could hold it back are those people in the area that are scared of anything that costs money or provides an ounce of risk. But judging by social media and talking to people I know, football is favored by most.

And I get the tradition thing which helps, but traditions are built and you can't do that if you don't play. It's been 30 years since we've fielded a team but the people will come. Former players are excited by it. It'd be really awesome if our most famous football alum could get behind it publicly and maybe make some sort of donation as well. I'm looking at you Bill Parcels.

NoDak,

Just a second there, professor. Are you talking about the MVC, or the MVFC??

Technically, if NCAA rules allowed it, the 10 teams in the MVFC could have decided to make that into a bonafide FBS conference itself, with those 10 teams becoming full members of that new FBS conference. (Name change would be needed)

While that would leave Bradley, Drake, Evansville, Loyola CHI and possibly Wichita hung out to dry, in the MVC, it at least makes some logical sense.


But it almost sounds like you're implying that the MVC would have moved up to FBS, with football members IL St, IN St, UNI, MO St, S ILL and perhaps WSU, then non-football members Bradley, Drake, Evansville and Loyola-CHI. Then you'd need to add two more full football members, I guess Idaho and NM St from the WAC. Doesn't sound realistic.

MAC for all-sports would be the best option for Missouri State mainly because our entire athletic department would fit under the MAC umbrella. Geography is the trouble. If we were in St. Louis or close, MAC would be a slam dunk.

Sun Belt is a pretty darn good fit as well. The biggest issue is basketball, not necessary the play which has improved in the Sun Belt, what we have been told the biggest issue is the non-exempt tournaments. It would be harder to get into those on the big boy side of the bracket. That is always the big RPI and resume builder on the neutral courts.

MSB,

Can you give an example of what you're talking about? In 2015-16, you went to the PR Tip-off, but that's a MTE tournament I believe. I didn't see any other tournaments.

(06-30-2016 10:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  MSB,

Can you give an example of what you're talking about? In 2015-16, you went to the PR Tip-off, but that's a MTE tournament I believe. I didn't see any other tournaments.

We play in one every year.:
Las Vegas Classic this year
Puerto Rico last year
Great Alaska Shootout
Corpus Christi Classic
Played in Mexico
South Padre Island etc

We generally get two home games with SWAC and MEAC schools then we get two neutral site games normally against P5 schools. Wisconsin, Texas A&M, etc have been some of our wins we have had. It is generally the best way to pick up wins over P5 schools on the schedule. Wichita State, UNI, etc will tell you that too.

Ok, you said non-exempt and that threw me off. Pretty sure Puerto Rico, LV, etc. are MTE's.


So if your point was then that being in the Sun Belt would make it harder to get into bigger MTE's with P5/High-major teams, fair enough.